October 19, 2007

Defending The Indefensible

Props to Politico's Jonathan Martin for getting all TNR-ish with a counterintuitive defense of that favorite scapegoat of struggling campaigns, "DC pundits".

But it's funny, ya know, these same folks who are so quick to beat up on the pundit class are rarely shy about sending out favorable press clippings from those money-and-poll-obsessed D.C. types.What's more, it's interesting that you don't typically see candidates who are faring well fall on the crutch of "it's the chattering classes' fault." In that way, attacking pundits is like claiming that your supporters aren't being sampled in polls or arguing that money really doesn't mean much to campaigns. You only say this when you can't produce decent poll numbers or raise any cash.

Yes! Give that man a plate of cocktail weenies! (P.S. Yes, the pundits are very often wrong. But Martin has a good point, too.)

Speaking of counterintuitiveness--if you're not a regular TNR reader, check out my piece in the new issue defending Fred Thompson from the "laziness" charge. (Not that he isn't lazy--but maybe laziness ain't so bad.)

P.S. Massie musters the energy to add some typically funny thoughts to the laziness question.